Inconsistent Coverage of MITRE ATT&CK Framework in Cybersecurity Tools: Insights from ATT&CKcon 2023

The landscape of cybersecurity is ever-evolving, with threats becoming increasingly sophisticated and diverse. To combat these challenges, organizations rely on various cybersecurity tools that promise to enhance their defenses. However, recent research presented at the fifth MITRE ATT&CKcon conference in McLean, Virginia, reveals a concerning inconsistency in how these tools cover the MITRE ATT&CK framework. This article delves into the findings of the research led by Apurva Virkud, a PhD student in computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, highlighting the implications for cybersecurity professionals and organizations.

Understanding the MITRE ATT&CK Framework

The MITRE ATT&CK framework is a comprehensive knowledge base that outlines the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by adversaries during cyberattacks. It serves as a critical resource for security vendors, analysts, and researchers, providing a structured approach to detecting and investigating incidents. The acronym "ATT&CK" stands for "Adversarial Tactics, Techniques, & Common Knowledge," and it categorizes various attack methods to help organizations better understand and defend against potential threats.

Research Findings: Incomplete Coverage of ATT&CK

Virkud’s research focused on endpoint security and security information and event management (SIEM) tools, examining their effectiveness in detecting techniques outlined in the ATT&CK framework. The study, which analyzed tools such as Carbon Black, Splunk, Elastic, and the Sigma open-source tool, revealed that these products had at least one detection technique for approximately half of the ATT&CK framework. However, the researchers noted that lower-risk detections could further dilute the overall effectiveness of these tools.

Virkud emphasized that MITRE does not position ATT&CK as a marketing tool, despite vendors often promoting their ATT&CK coverage. She stated that the metric of ATT&CK coverage is "too high level of a metric to really be meaningful," suggesting that organizations should look beyond mere coverage numbers when evaluating cybersecurity tools.

Consistency in Technique Coverage

One of the more surprising findings from the research was the consistency among the products regarding which techniques were covered. However, Virkud pointed out that even when different products aimed to detect the same threat, they often employed different attack techniques to describe it. This inconsistency raises concerns about the reliability of threat detection across various tools.

The researchers identified 53 techniques that were not implemented in any of the examined tools. The top three reasons for this lack of implementation included:

1. Ineffective Detection Method: Some behaviors are inherently difficult to detect, as noted by MITRE itself.
2. Targets Non-Host Infrastructure: Certain activities, such as Internet scanning, fall outside the scope of these tools.
3. Client-Specific Requirements: Effective detection may require specific knowledge of a customer’s unique environment.

Virkud remarked, "Many of these techniques are difficult if not impossible to implement," highlighting the challenges faced by cybersecurity vendors in providing comprehensive coverage.

Inconsistent Application of ATT&CK Techniques

The research also uncovered significant discrepancies in how different tools apply the ATT&CK framework. For instance, when comparing rules from Elastic and Splunk for named pipe impersonation and malicious DNS activity, Virkud noted that security analysts might attribute the same system log activity to entirely different motivations based on the tool they were using. This inconsistency can lead to confusion and misinterpretation of threat data, ultimately hindering an organization’s ability to respond effectively to cyber threats.

Perhaps most alarmingly, the study found that products disagreed on the appropriate ATT&CK technique about half the time. According to Virkud’s abstract, "even when attempting to detect the same malicious entity, products completely disagree about the appropriate ATT&CK technique annotations 51% of the time, while fully agreeing just 2.7% of the time." This finding underscores the dangers of relying solely on coverage-based assessments of ATT&CK compliance, as it may not guarantee protection from the same threats across different products.

Recommendations for Improvement

In light of these findings, the researchers recommended several actions to enhance the effectiveness of cybersecurity tools in relation to the MITRE ATT&CK framework:

1. Ongoing Guidance from MITRE: Continuous support and updates from MITRE can help vendors align their tools more closely with the evolving landscape of cyber threats.
2. Evaluations and Education: Regular evaluations of tools and educational initiatives for cybersecurity professionals can foster a deeper understanding of the ATT&CK framework and its application.
3. Caution Among Vendors and Practitioners: Vendors should exercise caution when marketing their ATT&CK coverage, and practitioners should approach these claims with a nuanced understanding of the framework’s limitations.

Conclusion

The findings presented at ATT&CKcon 2023 highlight a critical gap in the effectiveness of cybersecurity tools concerning the MITRE ATT&CK framework. As cyber threats continue to evolve, organizations must remain vigilant and informed about the limitations of their security tools. By fostering a deeper understanding of the ATT&CK framework and advocating for ongoing improvements in tool coverage, the cybersecurity community can better prepare for the challenges that lie ahead.